RQOPS
metric for a quantum computer's capabilities
Reliable Quantum Operations Per Second (rQOPS) is a metric that measures the capabilities and error rates of a quantum computer. It combines several key factors to measure how many reliable operations a computer can execute in a single second: logical error rates, clock speed, and number of reliable qubits.
The quantities included in rQOPS can be measured in all quantum computer architectures, allowing different architectures to be compared with one standard metric. A larger rQOPS measurement indicates a faster and more accurate device capable of solving more complex problems.
Microsoft suggest that a machine with 1 million rQOPS qualifies as a quantum supercomputer.
Alternative benchmarks include quantum volume, cross-entropy benchmarking, Circuit Layer Operations Per Second (CLOPS) proposed by IBM and IonQ's Algorithmic Qubits. However, as opposed to considering qubit performance alone, rQOPS measures how capable a quantum system is at solving tangible problems.
Definition
rQOPS is calculated as rQOPS=Q x f, at a corresponding logical error rate pL., where Q is the number of logical qubits and f is the hardware's logical clock speed. Microsoft has selected this metric for the higher quantum computing implementation levels as it encompasses scale, speed, and reliability.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “RQOPS” is metric for a quantum computer's capabilities. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through RQOPS, metric and quantum, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “metric for a quantum computer's capabilities” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 5, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q130641739. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “RQOPS”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow RQOPS primary sources, RQOPS archive and RQOPS research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “RQOPS”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “RQOPS” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.